Today’s host journalist is B. David Ridpath, teacher of sports business at Ohio University.
Southeastern Conference director Greg Sankey was a visitor on ESPN’s The Paul Finebaum Show a few weeks ago, and he was frequently referred to as the “most prominent people in college sports.”
I was n’t expecting it coming from someone like Sankey, who, in my opinion, has been a part of the problem with college sports, using his influence and power to thwart the evolution, growth, and change it so desperately needs. But perhaps yet he realizes there is no turning back.
” It’s not going to be the way it was—but it does not have to be the method it is”, Sankey said.
It’s true—college activities are not going up to the “way it was”, although those days were not as idealistic as usually preached. The myth that athletes attended school for their education predominated over their peers in the industry, with athletics participation only an avocation, persisted in the industry. The type that the business has lived and promoted for a millennium is no longer relevant, and college sports were not about that.
The need for strong solutions is now, to prevent that other decision-makers and influencers from influencing the sport governance space. Finally, a power seller has finally acknowledged that we are never going back to the days of complete and unfair control over institution players under the guise of sportsmanship and academics. It is time for the multibillion-dollar professional sports company, which has runners from all sporting who have worth more than the currently permitted award amount.
The United States is the only nation in the world where learning accounts for a large portion of its wealthy sport development. It’s time to stop that study and create new elite development pathways for the future both inside and outside of the education system.
In my research, I have been advocating for the United States to completely reform its approach to activity development, with a particular emphasis on professional athletics. If not, eroded designs that already exist could threaten our position as a sports power.
Finally, the game will always go on and we will often see. Since its inception, predictions for the ruination of college sports have been mixed, with some predicting the end of the sport based on multiple live TV broadcasts, allowing a stipend on top of the scholarship, and now naming, image, and likeness ( NIL ). However, college athletes who make money on NIL or even outright player salaries wo n’t change the desire of the market because they are more popular than ever. What are we waiting for, then? It is time for strong ideas to revive school activities and make it accessible to all, especially athletes.
Nothing should be off the board in the pending reform of school activities, including changes to private equity funding models and continued revisions to school sport’s playoffs, as I believe, as I do with Tim Pernetti, the new director of the American Athletic Conference. Involved and somewhat surprised by the modern framework proposed by recent NCAA president Charlie Baker in overdue 2023 that advocated for compensation models for college athletes and a new division of college football that supposedly separates larger programs from those that cannot financially compete in Division I.
Moreover, a very fascinating recent proposal of a college football super league by a group called College Sports Tomorrow ( CST ), a collection of U. S. sports team owners, executives and college administrators, demonstrates another potential option going forward.
I have long held the view that at the very least, an overall program/athletic budget must be used to separate NCAA Division I college football. In other words, it is not the have and have- nots. Nothing will really change that simply because of financial efficiency, and it is the haves and never-will-be’s. Many schools, including my own, Ohio University, play in a sandbox where they ca n’t compete in certain sports, have no financial or financial sense.
The model proposed by CST has many anchors I have long advocated, including collective bargaining for college athletes, better geographical alignment, negotiated restrictions/benefits on things like roster sizes, NIL compensation and transfers. It offers the most obvious separation of higher-resourced institutions, allowing lower-resourced institutions to compete and sustain at a high level financially and competitively in the sport of college football, but also offers a limited European-style promotion and relegation pathway for current Group of Five institutions to enter this new top football league.
It is more advantageous for schools to compete at levels they can afford and maintain while also capturing championships. Models like this can lead to more sport- by- sport and division- by- division membership, which can directly impact the institution with enrollment benefits, Title IX compliance, finances and even competitive equity. Why not think about allowing a school to commit to certain teams that will compete at the highest level in the top division while having teams from D-I, D-III, or even an improved college club sport model, which will increase the number of students? Why not create a sport-governed society? This is a way to maintain March Madness for Division I men’s and women’s basketball without worrying about divisional sport minimums or the competition level for other sports.
I have not forgotten the academic connection either. It is important and should be available but needs to be reframed, as the current system is somewhat counterintuitive. There is no justification for a college athlete to spend at least one full-time on their studies while growing up as an elite athlete for the Olympics, national, and professional teams while we are entertained. Before, during, or after the elite athletic performer’s life cycle, tailor the education around the athletic enterprise. The attempt to carry on the myth of “education first” has largely led to scandal and an expensive industry that emphasizes eligibility rather than actual education, because winning is always first. It does n’t always have to be between the ages of 18 and 22, but we should want an elite athlete to have access to a high-quality education when it works best for them to improve for the rest of their lives.
Again, there are many ways to go, but we must let go of backward thinking and move forward. New models are required in order for college sports to survive and thrive in a variety of ways. The recent proposal for a college football super league is intriguing, and institutions and affiliated businesses should take it seriously if they want to proceed, just like the Baker proposal. It is never going back to the way it was, as Sankey said, so let’s make it something that works for everyone. It can be done.
Prior to his career in academia, during which he has authored two books, more than 30 journal articles and 10 academic book chapters, Ridpath worked for over 15 years in intercollegiate athletics administration and coaching.